I'm under the impression that there's simply not enough evidence to make a claim either way, exactly because there's no direct or indirect evidence in terms of

I'm under the impression that there's simply not enough evidence to make a claim either way, exactly because there's no direct or indirect evidence in terms of culture or artifact. I really can't see how you can argue that there was no overhunting given you concede there's no knowing, and it comes across as if you just don't feel comfortable with human causes. Edit: the last sentence might come across as aggressive, it was merely my observation.